CONGRESS ACTION, XVI IBC (1999)

Congres action on proposals-to-amend-the-Code at the XVI IBC
(1999), the St Louis Congress.  Based on (by permission of the IAPT):

     Fred R. Barrie & Werner Greuter 
    “XVI International Botanical Congress: preliminary mail vote and
     report of Congress action on nomenclature proposals”  
     (in Taxon 48: 771-784. 1999).

But updated here and there according to the proceedings, by Werner
Greuter, John McNeill, David L. Hawksworth and Fred R. Barrie, in
Englera 20 (2000).

Links go to the relevant page of a PDF, a local copy (copyright IAPT).
However, this may be off one page (browser-dependent; some
browsers do not count the page added by JSTOR).

See also:

   •  conversion table
   •  list of proposals
 

         Synopsis    Proposal as submitted   Congress action Comm. advice
Gen. prop. - Prop. A 010 – Sp.C. electr. publ.  –  yes  
Gen. prop. - Prop. B 188 – Hawksworth  –  no  
Gen. prop. - Prop. C 189 – Hawksworth  –  no  
Gen. prop. - Prop. D 190 – Hawksworth  –  no  
Gen. prop. - Prop. E 191 – Hawksworth  –  no (mail vote)  
Gen. prop. - Prop. F 192 – Hawksworth  –  no  
Gen. prop. - Prop. G 193 – Hawksworth  –  no (mail vote)  
Gen. prop. - Prop. H 194 – Hawksworth  –  no (mail vote)  
Gen. prop. - Prop. I 195 – Hawksworth    
Gen. prop. - Prop. J 196 – Hawksworth    
Gen. prop. - Prop. K 197 – Hawksworth    

     these three proposals were accepted as amended (W.Anderson for
     Prop. I, J;  Keil for Prop. K).  The terms  “homotypic synonym”, 
     “heterotypic synonym”,  and  “replacement name”  to be added
     parenthetically after the current terms,  “nomenclatural synonym”,
     “taxonomic synonym”,  and  “avowed substitute”,  respectively.

Gen. prop. - Prop. L 198 – Hawksworth  –  no  
Pre. 8 - Prop. A 175 – Trehane  –  yes  
Pre. 8 - Prop. B 176 – Trehane  –  sp.c.  
Prin. n. - Prop. A 096 – Greuter  –  no  
Prin. I - Prop. A 207 – Hawksworth  –  no  
Prin. II - Prop. A 163 – Trehane  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 1 - Prop. A 098 – Chaloner & al.   c.foss.:  –
Art. 1 - Prop. B 097 – Chaloner & al.   c.foss.:  –

     these two proposals were replaced by a compromise (Skog, on
     behalf of an ad hoc group of palaeobotanists in attendance),
     which was accepted, to amend Art. 3.4 and add a Note to Art. 3:

        “3.4. As in the case of certain pleomorphic fungi, the provisions
         of this Code authorise the publication and use of names of
         morphotaxa.

        “Note n. For the purpose of this Code, a morphotaxon is defined
         as a fossil taxon based on a particular form or structure, life
         history stage, or preservational state.

Art. 3 - Prop. A 004 – Fensome & Skog  –  yes c.foss.:  +
Art. 4 - Prop. A 177 – Trehane  –  ed.c.
Art. 6 - Prop. A 037 – Zijlstra  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 6 - Prop. B 038 – Zijlstra  –  no  
Art. 6 - Prop. C 150 – Greuter  –  yes  
Art. 7 - Prop. A 045 – Zijlstra  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 7 - Prop. B 071 – Sp.C. lectotypif.  –  yes  
Art. 8 - Prop. A 066 – Sp.C. lectotypif.  –  yes  

     was accepted as amended (Compère, Greuter), adding the phrase
     “, disregarding admixtures”  at the end of the second sentence.

Art. 8 - Prop. B 068 – Sp.C. lectotypif.  –  no  
Art. 8 - Prop. C 211a – Gams & al.   c.alg.:  –, c.fung.:  +

     was accepted, as amended (the proposers, Greuter), to become a
     Note following Art. 8.2 – the present Example to remain as a
     “non-voted” Example:

          “Note. n. For fungi and algae, cultures, if preserved in a
           metabolically inactive state (e.g. lyophilisation or
           deep-freezing), are acceptable as types.

Art. 8 - Prop. D 084 – Forman & Brummitt    

     was dealt with in two steps (as suggested by the Rapporteurs):
     deletion of the phrase  “, or if such a name is without a type
     specimen,”  [concerning subsequent type designations]  was
     accepted; deletion of the remaining provision  [concerning the
     types of names of new taxa]  was rejected.

Art. 8 - Prop. E 048 – Traverse  –  no (mail vote) c.foss.:  ?
Art. 8 - Prop. F 049 – Traverse  –  withdrawn c.foss.:  ?
Art. 8 - Prop. G 040 – Fensome & al.  –  yes c.foss.:  +
Art. 8 - Prop. H 041 – Fensome & al.  –  yes c.foss.:  +

A motion (Silva) to introduce the term “iconotype” for an illustration
serving as type was withdrawn.

Rec. 8A - Prop. A 077 – Sp.C. lectotypif.  –  withdrawn  
Rec. 8A - Prop. B 078 – Sp.C. lectotypif.  –  ed.c.  
Rec. 8A - Prop. C 067 – Sp.C. lectotypif.  –  yes  
Art. 9 - Prop. A 050 – Isoviita  –  ed.c.  
Art. 9 - Prop. B 051 – Isoviita  –  ed.c.  
Art. 9 - Prop. C 212 – Gams & al.  –  withdrawn c.alg.:  –, c.fung.:  +
Art. 9 - Prop. D 083 – Forman & Brummitt  –  no  
Art. 9 - Prop. E 072 – Sp.C. lectotypif.  –  yes  
Art. 9 - Prop. F 073 – Sp.C. lectotypif.  –  yes  
Art. 9 - Prop. G 074 – Sp.C. lectotypif.  –  yes  
Art. 9 - Prop. H 075 – Sp.C. lectotypif.  –  yes  
Art. 9 - Prop. I 076 – Sp.C. lectotypif.  –  yes  
Art. 9 - Prop. J 069 – Sp.C. lectotypif.  –  yes  
Art. 9 - Prop. K 070 – Sp.C. lectotypif.  –  withdrawn  
Art. 9 - Prop. L 082 – Brummitt    

     was accepted as amended, as suggested by the Rapporteurs, to
     incorporate the phrase  “a single gathering but”  ahead of  “more
     than one specimen”.

Art. 9 - Prop. M 014 – Laferrière  –  no  
Art. 9 - Prop. N 015 – Laferrière  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 10 - Prop. A 178 – Trehane  –  sp.c.  
Art. 10 - Prop. B 079 – Sp.C. lectotypif.  –  sp.c.  
Art. 11 - Prop. A 099a – Chaloner & al.   c.alg.:  –, c.foss.:  –

     Prop. A and G were replaced by a compromise (Skog, on behalf of
     an ad hoc group of palaeobotanists in attendance), which was
     accepted, to add a sentence at the end of Art. 11.1 and to add a new
     paragraph to Art. 11 (the two Examples of Prop. G being referred
     to the Editorial Committee):

          “[11.1. ...] However, the use of separate names for the form-taxa
           of fungi and for morphotaxa of fossil plants is allowed under
           Art. 3.4 and 59.5.

          “11.1bis. Fossil taxa may be treated as morphotaxa which for
           nomenclatural purposes comprise only those parts, life-history
           stages or preservational states represented by the corresponding
           nomenclatural types. Names for morphotaxa, for purposes of
           priority, compete only with names based on a fossil type
           representing that same part, life history stage, or preservation
           state.

Art. 11 - Prop. B 100 – Chaloner & al.   c.alg.:  +, c.foss.:  ?

     was accepted as amended (Skog, on behalf of an ad hoc group of
     palaeobotanists in attendance; supported by the Committee for
     Algae), to replace  “algae”  in Art. 11.7 by  “diatoms”  or
     Bacillariophyceae.   [   ]

Art. 11 - Prop. C 043 – Zijlstra  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 11 - Prop. D 003 – Castroviejo & Brummitt  –  yes / ed.c.  
Art. 11 - Prop. E 062 – Jeffrey  –  no  
Art. 11 - Prop. F 209 – Hawksworth  –  no c.alg.:  –
Art. 11 - Prop. G 005 – Fensome & Skog  –  see Prop. A c.foss.:  +
Art. 14 - Prop. A 063 – Moore  –  yes  

A motion from the floor (Reveal) was accepted, to delete the present
footnote to Art. 14 Note 1 and instruct the Editorial Committee to
update and correct App. IIB, and any relevant Example, accordingly.

Art. 14 - Prop. B 034 – Reveal  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 14 - Prop. C 052 – Isoviita  –  no  
Art. 14 - Prop. D 085 – Mackinder & Lughadha  –  no  
Art. 14 - Prop. E 018 – Reveal  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 14 - Prop. F 129 – Zijlstra  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 14 - Prop. G 130 – Zijlstra  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 15 - Prop. A 086 – C. NCU  –  no  
Rec. 15A - Prop. A 087 – C. NCU  –  withdrawn  
Art. 16 - Prop. A 019 – Reveal    

     was accepted as amended (Demoulin) by deletion of the parenthesis,
     “(“typeless names”)”, in clause (b).

Art. 16 - Prop. B 020 – Reveal  –  yes
Art. 16 - Prop. C 021 – Reveal  –  yes  
Art. 16 - Prop. D 022 – Reveal  –  yes  
Art. 16 - Prop. E 023 – Reveal    

     was accepted, but to be implemented in conformity with the
     Rapporteurs’ suggestion:  “in Art. 16.1(a), as newly worded by
     Prop. A, to replace  “adding a termination denoting their rank to
     the genitive singular stem of a generic name”  by  “replacing the
     termination -aceae in a legitimate name of an included family by
     the termination denoting their rank” [...]”.

Art. 16 - Prop. F 024 – Reveal  –  sp.c.  
Art. 16 - Prop. G 025 – Reveal  –  sp.c.  
Art. 16 - Prop. H 101 – Reveal  –  sp.c.  
Art. 16 - Prop. I 026 – Reveal  –  sp.c.  
Art. 16 - Prop. J 027 – Reveal  –  sp.c.  
Rec. 16A - Prop. A 199 – Hawksworth  –  yes  
Art. 17 - Prop. A 200 – Hawksworth  –  yes  
Art. 19 - Prop. A 201 – Hawksworth  –  yes  
Art. 20 - Prop. A 202 – Hawksworth  –  yes  
Art. 20 - Prop. B 115 – Sp.C. orthography  –  withdrawn  
Art. 20 - Prop. C 179a – Trehane  –  sp.c.  
Art. 21 - Prop. A 151 – Greuter  –  yes  

A motion from the floor (Greuter) was accepted, to split both Art. 21.1
and 24.1 into two sentences by placing a period after  “epithet” and
continuing:  “A connecting term [...] is used to denote the rank.

Art. 21 - Prop. B 053 – Isoviita  –  yes c.alg.:  +
Art. 21 - Prop. C 054 – Isoviita  –  no (mail vote) c.alg.:  –
Art. 22 - Prop. A 152 – Greuter  –  yes  
Art. 23 - Prop. A 164 – Trehane  –  no  
Art. 23 - Prop. B 121 – Sp.C. orthography  –  ed.c.  
Art. 23 - Prop. C 147 – Perry  –  yes  
Art. 23 - Prop. D 148 – Perry  –  ed.c.  
Art. 23 - Prop. E 149 – Perry  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 27 - Prop. A 153 – Greuter  –  yes  
Sect. 5bis - Prop. A 180 – Trehane  –  sp.c.  
Sect. 5bis - Prop. B 181 – Trehane  –  sp.c.  
Sect. 5bis - Prop. C 182 – Trehane  –  sp.c.  
Sect. 5bis - Prop. D 183 – Trehane  –  sp.c.  
Art. 28 - Prop. A 184 – Trehane  –  sp.c.  
Art. 28 - Prop. B 185 – Trehane  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 28 - Prop. C 186 – Trehane  –  ed.c.  
Art. 29 - Prop. A 016 – Laferrière  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 29 - Prop. B 011 – Sp.C. electr. publ.  –  yes  
Art. 29 - Prop. C 012 – Sp.C. electr. publ.  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 30 - Prop. A 154 – Greuter  –  yes  
Art. 30 - Prop. B 017 – Laferrière  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 30 - Prop. C 044 – Zijlstra  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 30 - Prop. D 064 – Farjon  –  sp.c.  

Motions from the floor (Gams) were accepted, to add two new
Recommendations to Art. 30:

   “30Abis.n. Authors are encouraged to publish new names and new
     combinations in periodicals that regularly publish taxonomic articles,
     or to send a copy of their work to the appropriate indexing centre(s).

   “30Ater.n. Authors and editors are encouraged to list nomenclatural
     novelties in the summary, abstract or table of contents of the
     publication.

Art. 32 - Prop. A 088 – Borgen & al.  –  withdrawn  

A motion from the floor (Turland) was accepted, to remove all
registration provisions introduced by the XV International Botanical
Congress into the Code, to name, Art. 32.1 – last sentence, 32.2, and
45.2.

Art. 32 - Prop. B 089 – Borgen & al.  –  withdrawn  
Art. 32 - Prop. C 090 – Borgen & al.  –  withdrawn  
Art. 32 - Prop. D 091 – Borgen & al.  –  withdrawn  
Art. 32 - Prop. E 092 – Borgen & al.  –  withdrawn  
Art. 32 - Prop. F 093 – Borgen & al.  –  withdrawn  
Art. 32 - Prop. G 094 – Borgen & al.  –  withdrawn  
Art. 32 - Prop. H 013 – Sp.C. electr. publ.  –  no (mail vote)  
Rec. 32C - Prop. A 155 – Greuter    

     was accepted in the form as suggested by the Rapporteurs, the
     Recommendation to be rephrased.

Rec. 32G - Prop. A 095 – Borgen & al.  –  withdrawn  
Art. 33 - Prop. A 102 – Zijlstra & Brummitt  –  yes  
Art. 33 - Prop. B 104 – Greuter  –  yes  
Art. 33 - Prop. C 105 – Greuter  –  yes  
Art. 33 - Prop. D 028 – Reveal  –  sp.c.  
Art. 33 - Prop. E 042 – Veldkamp & Sosef    

     was referred to the Editorial Committee with the understanding
     (Greuter) that the last two sentences of the proposed Example be
     transformed into a Note defining the term “isonym”.

Art. 34 - Prop. A 103 – Zijlstra  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 35 - Prop. A 030 – Reveal  –  no (mail vote)  

     was replaced by the proposer by the following, accepted as a new
     provision  [to be followed by three Examples, two as originally
     proposed, one additional]:

          “35.2bis. For suprageneric names published on or after
           1 January 1908 – the use of one of the terminations specified by
           Art. 17-19 and Rec. 16A is accepted as an indication of the
           corresponding rank, unless this (a) would conflict with the
           explicitly designated rank of the taxon (which takes precedence)
           would result or (b) in a rank sequence contrary to Art. 5 (in
           which case Art. 33.5 applies).

A suggestion for rewording Art. 35.2 (Reveal) was referred to the
Editorial Committee.

Art. 35 - Prop. B 055 – Isoviita  –  no c.alg.:  +
Art. 35 - Prop. C 056 – Isoviita  –  no c.alg.:  +
Art. 35 - Prop. D 187 – Trehane  –  sp.c.  
Art. 35 - Prop. E 029 – Reveal  –  sp.c.  
Art. 36 - Prop. A 006 – Craven  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 36 - Prop. B 007 – Craven  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 36 - Prop. C 008 – Craven  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 37 - Prop. A 211b – Gams & al.  –  ed.c. c.alg.:  –, c.fung.:  +
Art. 37 - Prop. B 080 – Sp.C. lectotypif.    

     was accepted as amended (Greuter), to not replace  “specimen”  by
     “gathering”,  but rather to add  “gathering”.

Art. 37 - Prop. C 081 – Sp.C. lectotypif.  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 41 - Prop. A 031 – Reveal  –  sp.c.  
Art. 41 - Prop. B 032 – Reveal  –  sp.c.  
Art. 41 - Prop. C 179b – Trehane  –  sp.c.  
Art. 43 - Prop. A 179c – Trehane  –  sp.c.  
Art. 46 - Prop. A 165 – Trehane  –  yes  
Art. 46 - Prop. B 203 – Hawksworth  –  no  
Art. 46 - Prop. C 204 – Hawksworth  –  withdrawn  
Art. 46 - Prop. D 065 – Yatskievych & Wagner    

     was accepted as amended (Greuter), the proposed new provision to
     become a Note, it being understood that the term  “authorship” 
     when first used concerns the publication but the second time, the
     included new names.

Rec. 46A - Prop. A 156 – Greuter  –  yes  
Rec. 46E - Prop. A 205 – Hawksworth  –  no  
Art. 49 - Prop. A 033 – Reveal  –  sp.c.  
Rec. 50E - Prop. A 157 – Greuter  –  yes  
Rec. 50E - Prop. B 213 – Kuyper & al.  –  yes c.fung.:  +
Art. 52 - Prop. A 158 – Greuter  –  yes  
Art. 52 - Prop. B 039 – Zijlstra  –  withdrawn  
Art. 53 - Prop. A 159 – Greuter  –  yes  
Art. 53 - Prop. B 001 – Green & al.  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 53 - Prop. C 002 – Green & al.  –  no (mail vote)  

A motion from the floor (Gandhi) was accepted to add a clarification
to Art. 53.6 – perhaps by means of an explanatory Note, to the effect
that

    “The renamed homonym remains legitimate and has priority over
     the nomen novum at the same rank if a transfer to another genus is
     made.”

Art. 54 - Prop. A 206 – Hawksworth  –  no (mail vote)  
Rec. 54A - Prop. A 208 – Hawksworth  –  yes  
Art. 55 - Prop. A 057 – Isoviita (cf. Prop. 151)  –  ed.c.  
Art. 55 - Prop. B 058 – Isoviita (cf. Prop. 152)  –  ed.c.  
Art. 56 - Prop. A 046 – Weber  –  no  
Art. 58 - Prop. A 160 – Greuter  –  yes  
Art. 58 - Prop. B 059 – Isoviita  –  no  
Rec. 58A - Prop. A 161 – Greuter  –  yes  
Rec. 58A - Prop. A 060 – Isoviita  –  yes  
Rec. 58A - Prop. B 061 – Isoviita  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 59 - Prop. A 215 – Jørgensen & Gams  –  yes c.fung.:  +
Art. 59 - Prop. B 214 – Jørgensen & Gams  –  as a Rec. c.fung.:  ±
Art. 59bis - Prop. A 099b – Chaloner & al.  –  withdrawn c.foss.:  –
Art. 60 - Prop. A 106 – Sp.C. orthography  –  no  
Art. 60 - Prop. B 138 – Perry & Nicolson  –  no  
Art. 60 - Prop. C 139 – Perry & Nicolson  –  no  
Art. 60 - Prop. D 140 – Perry & Nicolson  –  no  
Art. 60 - Prop. E 109 – Sp.C. orthography  –  no  
Art. 60 - Prop. F 142 – Perry & Nicolson  –  no  
Art. 60 - Prop. G 143 – Perry & Nicolson  –  no  
Art. 60 - Prop. H 107 – Sp.C. orthography  –  no  
Art. 60 - Prop. I 108 – Sp.C. orthography  –  no  
Art. 60 - Prop. J 141 – Perry & Nicolson  –  no  
Art. 60 - Prop. K 110 – Sp.C. orthography  –  no  
Art. 60 - Prop. L 122 – Zijlstra  –  no  
Art. 60 - Prop. M 123 – Zijlstra  –  no  
Art. 60 - Prop. N 124 – Zijlstra  –  no  
Art. 60 - Prop. O 125 – Zijlstra  –  no  
Art. 60 - Prop. P 126 – Zijlstra  –  no  
Art. 60 - Prop. Q 127 – Zijlstra  –  no  
Art. 60 - Prop. R 128 – Zijlstra  –  no  
Art. 60 - Prop. S 111 – Sp.C. orthography  –  no  
Art. 60 - Prop. T 112 – Sp.C. orthography  –  no  
Art. 60 - Prop. U 166 – Trehane  –  no  
Art. 60 - Prop. W 131 – Zijlstra  –  no  
Art. 60 - Prop. V 113 – Sp.C. orthography  –  no  
Art. 60 - Prop. X 132 – Zijlstra  –  no  
Art. 60 - Prop. Y 168 – Trehane  –  no  
Art. 60 - Prop. Z 167 – Trehane  –  no  
Art. 60 - Prop. AA 135 – Zijlstra  –  no  
Art. 60 - Prop. BB 144 – Perry & Nicolson  –  no  
Art. 60 - Prop. CC 145 – Perry & Nicolson  –  no  
Art. 60 - Prop. DD 146 – Perry & Nicolson  –  no  
Art. 60 - Prop. EE 136 – Zijlstra  –  no  
Art. 60 - Prop. FF 134 – Zijlstra  –  no  
Art. 60 - Prop. HH 114 – Sp.C. orthography  –  no  
Art. 60 - Prop. II 116 – Sp.C. orthography  –  no  
Art. 60 - Prop. JJ 117 – Sp.C. orthography  –  no  
Art. 60 - Prop. KK 118 – Sp.C. orthography  –  no  
Art. 60 - Prop. LL 137 – Zijlstra  –  no  
Art. 60 - Prop. GG 169 – Trehane  –  no  

A motion from the floor (Zijlstra) was accepted, to delete the word
“generic”  from Art. 60 Note 1.

Rec 60B - Prop. A 170 – Trehane  –  yes  
Rec. 60C - Prop. A 119 – Sp.C. orthography  –  yes  
Rec. 60C - Prop. B 036 – Zhilin & al.  –  yes  
Rec. 60C - Prop. C 047 – Stearn  –  no  
Rec. 60C - Prop. D 035 – Zhilin & al.  –  no  
Rec. 60C - Prop. E 133 – Zijlstra  –  withdrawn  
Rec. 60C - Prop. F 171 – Trehane  –  yes  
Rec. 60E - Prop. A 172 – Trehane    

     was accepted as amended, as per the Rapporteurs’ suggestion to
     editorially improve the Recommendation rather than delete it.

Rec. 60G - Prop. A 120 – Sp.C. orthography  –  ed.c.  
Rec. 60H - Prop. A 173 – Trehane  –  yes  
Rec. 60I - Prop. A 174 – Trehane  –  yes  

A motion from the floor (Nicolson) was accepted to add  “-glochin
in Art. 62.2 to the feminine word elements listed under clause (b);
and also one (Compère, for the Committee for Algae) to add 
-phykos (-phycos, -phycus)”  in Art. 62.2 to the masculine word
elements listed as exceptions under clause (c).

Div. III - Prop. A Prop. 210 by – Hawksworth    

     was accepted as amended (Stuessy):  not, as proposed, a new
     Permanent Committee to be listed in Div. III.2, but a Special
     Committee (to report to the XVII IBC).

App. I - Prop. A 009 – Craven  –  no (mail vote)  
App. I - Prop. B 162 – Greuter  –  yes  

A motion from the floor (Trehane) was accepted, to delete Art. H.3.3
and Note 2.

Committees

Special Committees (to report to the XVII IBC) to be set up:

(1) Special Committee on Electronic Publishing  (as per Gen. Prop. A);
(2) Special Committee on Early  [pre-Cambridge-Congress]  generic
      typifications;
(3) Special Committee on Suprageneric Names;
(4) Special Committee on Effective Publication  [to consider theses in
      particular];
(5) Special Intercode Committee ICBN/ICNCP  [to co-ordinate and
      harmonise the provisions on the nomenclature of hybrids];
(6) Special Liaison Committee with other Nomenclatural Codes; and
(7) Special Committee to review Division III of the Code  [particularly
      the voting procedures].
 
See also: Fred R. Barrie & Dan H. Nicolson  “Announcement: Special
Nomenclature Committees”  (in Taxon 50: 893-896. 2001)

 
 
 
 
 


1999 ©, IAPT (Report on Congress action);
2014 ©, Paul van Rijckevorsel (this page)